If you want proof against an "intelligent" creator look no further than the fact that there's a single tube through which we eat, breath, and communicate. We can split atoms and send probes to Mars but a single jalapeno popper could be enough to kill any one of us.

I don't know that I'd call it 'proof' against a creator but it certainly makes more sense under evolutionary theory than creationism. It is pretty much expected under evolution as the environment changes and organisms adapt slowly. Under creationism you have to assume that the omnipotent, omniscient creator started with a limited number of basic plans which were then modified as needed and the leftover bits were allowed to hang around. Maybe they should start promoting Lazy Design or Sloppy Design instead of Intelligent Design.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP

(12-12-2014 11:15 AM)unfogged Wrote: I don't know that I'd call it 'proof' against a creator but it certainly makes more sense under evolutionary theory than creationism. It is pretty much expected under evolution as the environment changes and organisms adapt slowly. Under creationism you have to assume that the omnipotent, omniscient creator started with a limited number of basic plans which were then modified as needed and the leftover bits were allowed to hang around. Maybe they should start promoting Lazy Design or Sloppy Design instead of Intelligent Design.

Eating, breathing, and speaking through the same passageway isn't proof against a creator - it's proof against any such creator's intelligence.

(12-12-2014 10:04 AM)TheInquisition Wrote: I was reading some interesting articles today, there is so much evidence against any creation myth, many things that most people don't know about or are unaware of:

The cleverest theist argument I have heard regarding these traits, and even the wastefulness of evolution itself is "What does an infinite god care for waste?". If the god has infinite time, material, and energy to work from why wouldn't it act wastefully and suboptimally?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.